 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accurate representation of the likely consensus to be found during future requests for adminship.
This page is for Wikipedians to disclose their own standards to be met for them to approve of a request on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you are interested in the statistical results as related to such standards, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics. Note that this page is not official policy on minimum requirements for adminship; it merely sets out the individual opinion of various users. There are currently NO requirements as to the number of edits or length of service required of an editor to become an administrator.
Feel free to add your minimum standards to this table; try to keep the table alphabetized by username.
This page is for Wikipedians whose usernames start with the letters A-D; numbers and symbols like "(" should go here too.
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| abakharev | Large editcount shows devotion to the project and provide material to evaluate nominees judgement and balance. No support for people with vandalous edits, blatant personal attacks, hatred, censorship, disruptions, directly or via socks. Reforming require at least a year and 10000 edits to be believable. If no material proving that a person is unsuited, just low editcounts, etc, then I vote neutral or do not vote at all. |
| Adambiswanger1 | The most important criterion for my vote is level-headedness. Arguing a point for the sake of arguing, not reviewing situations carefully, or rude/unprofessional behavior will result in an "oppose". Also, I prefer admins to display an intimate knowledge of the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia. This is best implied by the number of Wikipedia namespace edits. |
|
Afonso Silva |
I prefer candidates who participate in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, who create and improve articles. Editors who wrote a FA, or similar, show a good level of abnegation and commitment, that's what Wikipedia needs. Participating in *fD and other project chores also shows knowledge of the policies. Civility and the use of edit summaries are also major issues. |
|
AGK |
"I evaluate administrator nominations on a case-by-case basis. Either a candidate will be a positive influence on the project, and I'll support, or won't be, and I'll oppose. Evaluating each candidacy against communal standards of behaviour, conduct, and clue is my general approach to voting". User:AGK/RfA has more information. |
|
AKMask M ask 
|
Long usertime is important to get all the nuances of policy down. Edit count is important to be well distributed between the article space and the Wikipedia: namespace, to show as much dedication to community efforts as the information itself. |
ALKIVAR
™
|
long enough to spot argumentative tendancies/temperment, too many people have been promoted then turned around and abused admin powers. |
| Anaraug ( talk) | Has to have shown devotion in some way. It would be nice to see that they managed to remain sane and civil during some kind of disagreement. |
| Andeh | Things stated at WP:GRFA is what I go by most of the time. Common sense really. |
| Andrevan ( talk) | I will support a good user that I feel will make a good admin regardless of my standards, low as they are. However, edits and time alone aren't enough. |
| Andrew Lenahan - Starblind | I try to look at overall character and value to the project instead of "x edits in y namespace" or "z% edit summary usage". I've been an admin for well more than a year, and despite having created 50+ new articles, I still don't have anything even close to 1000 articlespace edits, so I consider such restrictions somewhat unrealistic. It's very unlikely (though not necessarily impossible) that anyone with any history of trolling/sockpuppetry/vandalism would get my vote. |
| AN ( talk) | an age of at least 18-21+ years |
| android 79 | My general thoughts on the matter can be found here. |
| Antandrus ( talk) | Maturity, civility, good judgment, and a history of useful contributions to the project. This may be writing articles, doing cleanup work, reverting vandalism, working on policy, or any of a number of things. I'm especially impressed by those who remain cool and do not feel the need to retaliate when they are attacked by vandals or trolls, and those who do not need to be "right" all the time. I also need to get a sense the candidate is stable, sane, and not an extremist of some type. I also want to see them react calmly and appropriately to any criticism during the RFA process itself, since calmness and deliberation are essential qualities in an admin. |
| anthony 警告 | This should be no big deal. Adminship should be granted to anyone who wants it and agrees to use it solely for enacting the uncontroversial will of the community. It should be taken away from anyone who willfully uses it in a way which does not have consensus support. The sole purpose of the standards is to ensure that adminship can be successfully taken away (i.e. protect against sockpuppets). |
| Anwar | Must pass the |
| Ashibaka | I do not vote for anyone who can get into trouble. If there are old problems, I may support if the user has clearly shaped up. Must come up with an original and exciting new answer to question 1. |
| Asbestos | Must have had some interest in formation of policies or other under-the-hood working of wikipedia. Must have no evidence of incivility. |
| Λυδ α cιτγ | Nominee needs to demonstate understanding of what it means to be an administator, and must convince me that he will use the administator tools. Edit summary use is important. Civility is a must, and I happen to favor controversial actions done in good faith. For more detail, see User:Audacity/Standards. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| BaronLarf | User should demonstrate familiarity with dispute resolution, participate in VfD and vandal fighting, demonstrate civilty and make edit summaries. Edits should be across a variety of subjects. |
| Bart133 | The only standards I will follow are very simple. You must have done no vandalism, although I might disregard minor vandalism in the first 100 edits, though it's still a negative factor. Also, you must have done either some work on improving or creating articles, participated in Wikipedia projects (i.e. AFD), or done major work as a janitor or vandal fighter. Just fixing typos doesn't require adminship. |
| Batmanand | I would add to this at least three months of little if any disruptive behaviour. An in-depth discussion of my views of RfA can be found here; but in short, as long as a candidate is civil, assumes good faith and has done not much wrong for a reasonable length of time (three months is my personal criterion), then I cannot see any reason not to give them Adminship. |
| blankfaze - (что??) | More important than the stastical guidelines (IMO) are the more abstract ones, such as level of disputes in a user's past, and my familiarity with a user. *Note that this is not a strict guideline. See my lengthy explanation of my personal standards for more information. |
| Blnguyen - (что??) | Please see User:Blnguyen/RfA. Thankyou. |
| BorgHunter ( talk) | My only standard is: Will making this user an admin help Wikipedia? Generally, a sprinkling of vandal fighting plus some experience in process and procedure is enough for me. I will only oppose a user if I believe making him an admin harms Wikipedia, and I will provide diffs (or reference some already provided) as evidence of this. If I believe a user lacks experience, the vote I will cast is usually neutral. Other things that can affect my vote: Use of edit summaries, user's tone on talk pages, behavior under pressure, and how seriously they have taken their RfA. |
| BrenDJ | |
| BryanG (talk) | For the long version, see here. But basically, you should have good answers to the standard questions, have a decent amount of experience in the areas you want to work in, and be civil. Be good there and I'll usually overlook the editcount stuff. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Carbonite (
talk)
the curve could get my support at 4 months. |
In general, I agree with the idea that adminship should be "no big deal". However, since admins have access to potentially destructive tools, the community must be satisfied that the candidate can handle the power responsibly. I prefer candidates who participate in "janitorial" work such as RC patrol, tagging nonsense articles and wikifying links. There should be a fair amount of edits in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces that demonstrate that the candidate has a grasp on policy. A strong emphasis is placed on civility and recent poor behavior may result in an oppose vote. |
| Cecropia | Edit counts are problematic unless you take a sampling of the edits themselves. Some editors have racked up multiple thousands of edits in weeks by not using the preview button and making very minor edits. Someone who wrote a complete scholarly article off-line would get one edit for it. We might look also for those who would use admin powers well; someone who mediates between users or makes many appropriate reverts by hand. |
| Celestianpower | Past interactions do a world of good for me. If I've seen you around and like what I see, I'll most likely support. Edit counts and time mean nothing. |
| Cam | 1: Strong article work, several contributions in the GA/FA realm. Much of the ANI realm deals with article issues, and thus an admin who has a first-person understanding of the writing process is a must. 2: A level of maturity and civility in their interactions with other editors. While I will tolerate isolated lapses (we're all human, after all), consistent immaturity and incivility are not qualities I want to see in admins. 3: A strong synthesis of policy and common sense, and sufficient clue to know which one is more important in which situation. |
| Computerjoe | 1. Participation throughout different namespaces; 2. Friendliness and helpfulness; 3. Knowledge and compliance with policy: especially WP:CIVIL; 4. Enough experience with the Wikipedia; 5. Understanding of WP:IAR, and that the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia over an online community. |
| Covington | I am looking for people who are 1) committed, 2) fair, 3) civil, 4) knowledgeable, and 5) experienced. Taking constructive criticism and being honest are plusses, extreme editcountitis and "one-upping" are huge no-nos. Hint: I consider myself as a person who would not want to be an admin, and am not intending to go through a RfA in the near future. If your profile looks similar to mine, please 1) spend some more time editing pages, 2) spend some more time on Wikipedia, and 3) collaborate with other users on article(s). Write me on my talk page for more info. Good luck. |
| Chris 73 | Ideally: Civil language (no personal attacks), active talk page with more positive than negative comments, knowledge of the community and various policies, active in janitorial work. No overly extreme views. (Strengths in some areas may balance some weaknesses in other areas, perfect candidates are rare) |
| ~ crazytales56297 -talk- | I generally support unless there is an overwhelming negative history, like multiple 3rr blocks or incivility. I prefer 10% of edits each in User talk and Wikipedia, and generally more User talk edits than user. I' m lenient because I realise the dearth of admins and believe that any well-intentioned user with a good history would benefit the community by becoming an admin. |
| Croat Canuck | If a user always keeps a level head and not take things too seriously. Also, the user MUST not have committed multiple harmful acts to Wikipedia other than perhaps their first few edits in existence. |
| CryptoDerk | I look at adminships on a case by case basis. 1000 edits is sufficient only in cases when the user has been around for a long time (6+ months). 3 months and around 2000 edits is fine. I like to see some vandal fighting and/or involvement in community and talk pages. Most importantly, if your talk page has many comments about you doing stuff wrong, you put speedy tags on things that aren't CSDs, or you attack other users, I will oppose. The slate is wiped clean if it happened prior to a previous RFA. |
| CrazyRussian | I examine contributions for policy knowledge, BITing, civility, and thoughtfulness. I will not support a teenager unless I see specific indications of above-average maturity. I expect high edit counts in WP: and X-talk: spaces. - crz crztalk 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
| CycloneNimrod talk? | Generally over 1,500 edits and at least 6 months experience. Must be able to edit well (e.g. B class standard) and understand, comprehensively, the principles of WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:AfD and WP:RFPP. No blocks or serious warnings (vandalism, page blanking) within the past year and must be able to explain why they were blocked or warned and why it won't happen again. |
| Cyde↔Weys | Every candidate is a unique person, so I perform a unique analysis on each one. |
| Cynical ( talk) | I don't have any set editcount requirement, but if the user's contribution level was absurdly low (say not even high enough to be eligible to vote in Arbcom/WMF board elections, for example) then I would oppose. I have no set time requirements - a significant level of contribution to the Wikipedia community can outweigh a lack of months/weeks/days/seconds spent gnoming. I would expect decent contributions to Wikipedia_talk and Afd (since anything an admin does will probably involve either one of those) - being a good article editor does not make you a good admin, some level of understanding of how Wikipedia works is needed. Also (until recently this didn't need to be said) I expect a candidate to be human - and I mean that literally. The most important quality for an admin is judgement (indeed, the whole point of RFA is to determine whether the community trusts the candidate's judgement or not), which is something that a bot simply does not have. Bots are therefore by definition unsuitable for adminship. One final note: any contributions which show a tendency towards contempt for community consensus or Wikipedia policy will generally result in opposition. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| DaGizza Chat © | If I happened to be acquainted with the user personally and know that he is trustworthy, then naturally I'll be more inclined to support and vice versa. Contributions to improving articles and managing the encyclopedia are both required because the most important thing is that this is an encyclopedia but Admins have an extra responsibilty to maintain law and order similar to
policemen. Lastly of course, he/she should be respected among the community (ie. kind, civil, calm, etc.)
In one sentence, the user must need the admin tools for his work at Wikipedia and is trustworthy enough to use them. |
| -- danntm T C | See User:Danntm/RFA for details. |
| DarthVad e r | Adminship is no big deal. If the editor shows that they understand something about the WP namespace (ie. with like 100 edits in WP:) and are mostly civil, then they should be accepted. Adminship has nothing at all to do with contributing to articles, so any criteria to do with having to have made/contributed to making a featured article or having to make heaps of "good contribution" article edits is nonsense. |
| Dbiv | Must have a user page giving some details about the candidate. Discounts on the writing requirement for those who have contributed to non-English Wikipedias. No strict requirement for edit numbers because a small number of major edits and new articles is far, far preferable to thousands of minor wikification edits, category changes and suchlike; and editors who only do the housekeeping tasks should not look to me for support. |
| D e ath phoenix | User must show some familiarity with Wikipedia processes (including activity in the Wikipedia-space) and have performed some non-admin maintenance tasks already. Answers to question 1 are often helpful in showing me how familiar the user is with Wikipedia processes. Lack of recent "negativity" is an asset, though how the user handled this is much more important. I usually only vote for users who I have personally "seen around", though I'll sometimes vote on new users who need more experience while avoiding pile-on voting. |
| Denelson83 | I will also analyse such properties as proportion of total edits summarized, general attitude of messages on the candidate's user talk page, and possibly interaction between the candidate and myself, if any. Not interacting with me, however, is not a requirement for me to support. If a potential admin has ever had a dispute with me, no matter how trivial, I will oppose that candidate on all subsequent RFAs, because I have a permanent memory of such events. |
| dlohcierekim( Talk)( Contribs) | Demonstrated ability, Barnstars, Major significant contributions weigh for support. History of vandalism, recent blocks, recent serious conflicts (Uncivility), demonstrated unreadiness weigh against. |
| Dmn | Must not have a history of vandalism or lying. Must be civil. |
| DoriSmith ( talk · contribs) | See User:DoriSmith/onRFA. |
| Doug Bell | Civility and maturity are the most important qualities—must have enough history of interactions with other users to be able to judge these. Involvement in Wikipedia policies to some extent is required, but excessive involvement in policy and talk pages to the exclusion of article contributions is a potential problem. Must demonstrate civility and maturity. Must use edit summaries—anything below 80% on major edits probably gets an oppose vote except for exceptionally strong candidates in all other areas. Over involvment in side issues such as the userbox debates, regardless of which side, is a red flag. Oh, and civility and maturity are a must.
While vandal fighting is essential, I'm not particularly swayed to grant adminship if a majority of the edits are from vandal fighting—I'd rather have admins who are engaged in creation rather than simply whacking vandals because I think that gives a better perspective for dealing with disputes. Although particularly prolific, mature and civil vandal fighters might get the nod. |
| Draicone (talk) | Case by case basis really. Can't think of an RfA I haven't supported though. |
| Drini | Must be wiling and be corageous enough to be rogue and cabalist when it's needed for the good of the wiki. And must understand debates are not votes (and thus omgadminadbuse close debates weighing arguments and not numeric count |
| ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) | Must have been involved in AfD discussions and other project and article name-space edits, and have done at least a minimal amount of vandal fighting. Demonstrating civility, maturity, and interaction (user talk-space edits) with others in a friendly and positive manner. |
| Durova | Play well with others. Don't run with scissors. Seriously, the question I ask is would I want you calling the shots at a dispute where I'm involved? Show me you know the site and its policies, that you would use the tools wisely and that you'd keep cool as a cucumber when a user taunts that your family tree is sixteen other species of vegetable. |
|
| This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
- As many listings here are outdated, this list may no longer be an accurate representation of the likely consensus to be found during future requests for adminship.
This page is for Wikipedians to disclose their own standards to be met for them to approve of a request on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you are interested in the statistical results as related to such standards, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics. Note that this page is not official policy on minimum requirements for adminship; it merely sets out the individual opinion of various users. There are currently NO requirements as to the number of edits or length of service required of an editor to become an administrator.
Feel free to add your minimum standards to this table; try to keep the table alphabetized by username.
This page is for Wikipedians whose usernames start with the letters A-D; numbers and symbols like "(" should go here too.
| User | Edit count standards, if any | Time standards, if any | Other notes |
|---|
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| abakharev | Large editcount shows devotion to the project and provide material to evaluate nominees judgement and balance. No support for people with vandalous edits, blatant personal attacks, hatred, censorship, disruptions, directly or via socks. Reforming require at least a year and 10000 edits to be believable. If no material proving that a person is unsuited, just low editcounts, etc, then I vote neutral or do not vote at all. |
| Adambiswanger1 | The most important criterion for my vote is level-headedness. Arguing a point for the sake of arguing, not reviewing situations carefully, or rude/unprofessional behavior will result in an "oppose". Also, I prefer admins to display an intimate knowledge of the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia. This is best implied by the number of Wikipedia namespace edits. |
|
Afonso Silva |
I prefer candidates who participate in Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, who create and improve articles. Editors who wrote a FA, or similar, show a good level of abnegation and commitment, that's what Wikipedia needs. Participating in *fD and other project chores also shows knowledge of the policies. Civility and the use of edit summaries are also major issues. |
|
AGK |
"I evaluate administrator nominations on a case-by-case basis. Either a candidate will be a positive influence on the project, and I'll support, or won't be, and I'll oppose. Evaluating each candidacy against communal standards of behaviour, conduct, and clue is my general approach to voting". User:AGK/RfA has more information. |
|
AKMask M ask
|
Long usertime is important to get all the nuances of policy down. Edit count is important to be well distributed between the article space and the Wikipedia: namespace, to show as much dedication to community efforts as the information itself. |
|
ALKIVAR
™
|
long enough to spot argumentative tendancies/temperment, too many people have been promoted then turned around and abused admin powers. |
| Anaraug ( talk) | Has to have shown devotion in some way. It would be nice to see that they managed to remain sane and civil during some kind of disagreement. |
| Andeh | Things stated at WP:GRFA is what I go by most of the time. Common sense really. |
| Andrevan ( talk) | I will support a good user that I feel will make a good admin regardless of my standards, low as they are. However, edits and time alone aren't enough. |
| Andrew Lenahan - Starblind | I try to look at overall character and value to the project instead of "x edits in y namespace" or "z% edit summary usage". I've been an admin for well more than a year, and despite having created 50+ new articles, I still don't have anything even close to 1000 articlespace edits, so I consider such restrictions somewhat unrealistic. It's very unlikely (though not necessarily impossible) that anyone with any history of trolling/sockpuppetry/vandalism would get my vote. |
| AN ( talk) | an age of at least 18-21+ years |
| android 79 | My general thoughts on the matter can be found here. |
| Antandrus ( talk) | Maturity, civility, good judgment, and a history of useful contributions to the project. This may be writing articles, doing cleanup work, reverting vandalism, working on policy, or any of a number of things. I'm especially impressed by those who remain cool and do not feel the need to retaliate when they are attacked by vandals or trolls, and those who do not need to be "right" all the time. I also need to get a sense the candidate is stable, sane, and not an extremist of some type. I also want to see them react calmly and appropriately to any criticism during the RFA process itself, since calmness and deliberation are essential qualities in an admin. |
| anthony 警告 | This should be no big deal. Adminship should be granted to anyone who wants it and agrees to use it solely for enacting the uncontroversial will of the community. It should be taken away from anyone who willfully uses it in a way which does not have consensus support. The sole purpose of the standards is to ensure that adminship can be successfully taken away (i.e. protect against sockpuppets). |
| Anwar | Must pass the |
| Ashibaka | I do not vote for anyone who can get into trouble. If there are old problems, I may support if the user has clearly shaped up. Must come up with an original and exciting new answer to question 1. |
| Asbestos | Must have had some interest in formation of policies or other under-the-hood working of wikipedia. Must have no evidence of incivility. |
| Λυδ α cιτγ | Nominee needs to demonstate understanding of what it means to be an administator, and must convince me that he will use the administator tools. Edit summary use is important. Civility is a must, and I happen to favor controversial actions done in good faith. For more detail, see User:Audacity/Standards. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| BaronLarf | User should demonstrate familiarity with dispute resolution, participate in VfD and vandal fighting, demonstrate civilty and make edit summaries. Edits should be across a variety of subjects. |
| Bart133 | The only standards I will follow are very simple. You must have done no vandalism, although I might disregard minor vandalism in the first 100 edits, though it's still a negative factor. Also, you must have done either some work on improving or creating articles, participated in Wikipedia projects (i.e. AFD), or done major work as a janitor or vandal fighter. Just fixing typos doesn't require adminship. |
| Batmanand | I would add to this at least three months of little if any disruptive behaviour. An in-depth discussion of my views of RfA can be found here; but in short, as long as a candidate is civil, assumes good faith and has done not much wrong for a reasonable length of time (three months is my personal criterion), then I cannot see any reason not to give them Adminship. |
| blankfaze - (что??) | More important than the stastical guidelines (IMO) are the more abstract ones, such as level of disputes in a user's past, and my familiarity with a user. *Note that this is not a strict guideline. See my lengthy explanation of my personal standards for more information. |
| Blnguyen - (что??) | Please see User:Blnguyen/RfA. Thankyou. |
| BorgHunter ( talk) | My only standard is: Will making this user an admin help Wikipedia? Generally, a sprinkling of vandal fighting plus some experience in process and procedure is enough for me. I will only oppose a user if I believe making him an admin harms Wikipedia, and I will provide diffs (or reference some already provided) as evidence of this. If I believe a user lacks experience, the vote I will cast is usually neutral. Other things that can affect my vote: Use of edit summaries, user's tone on talk pages, behavior under pressure, and how seriously they have taken their RfA. |
| BrenDJ | |
| BryanG (talk) | For the long version, see here. But basically, you should have good answers to the standard questions, have a decent amount of experience in the areas you want to work in, and be civil. Be good there and I'll usually overlook the editcount stuff. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
|
Carbonite (
talk)
the curve could get my support at 4 months. |
In general, I agree with the idea that adminship should be "no big deal". However, since admins have access to potentially destructive tools, the community must be satisfied that the candidate can handle the power responsibly. I prefer candidates who participate in "janitorial" work such as RC patrol, tagging nonsense articles and wikifying links. There should be a fair amount of edits in the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces that demonstrate that the candidate has a grasp on policy. A strong emphasis is placed on civility and recent poor behavior may result in an oppose vote. |
| Cecropia | Edit counts are problematic unless you take a sampling of the edits themselves. Some editors have racked up multiple thousands of edits in weeks by not using the preview button and making very minor edits. Someone who wrote a complete scholarly article off-line would get one edit for it. We might look also for those who would use admin powers well; someone who mediates between users or makes many appropriate reverts by hand. |
| Celestianpower | Past interactions do a world of good for me. If I've seen you around and like what I see, I'll most likely support. Edit counts and time mean nothing. |
| Cam | 1: Strong article work, several contributions in the GA/FA realm. Much of the ANI realm deals with article issues, and thus an admin who has a first-person understanding of the writing process is a must. 2: A level of maturity and civility in their interactions with other editors. While I will tolerate isolated lapses (we're all human, after all), consistent immaturity and incivility are not qualities I want to see in admins. 3: A strong synthesis of policy and common sense, and sufficient clue to know which one is more important in which situation. |
| Computerjoe | 1. Participation throughout different namespaces; 2. Friendliness and helpfulness; 3. Knowledge and compliance with policy: especially WP:CIVIL; 4. Enough experience with the Wikipedia; 5. Understanding of WP:IAR, and that the Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia over an online community. |
| Covington | I am looking for people who are 1) committed, 2) fair, 3) civil, 4) knowledgeable, and 5) experienced. Taking constructive criticism and being honest are plusses, extreme editcountitis and "one-upping" are huge no-nos. Hint: I consider myself as a person who would not want to be an admin, and am not intending to go through a RfA in the near future. If your profile looks similar to mine, please 1) spend some more time editing pages, 2) spend some more time on Wikipedia, and 3) collaborate with other users on article(s). Write me on my talk page for more info. Good luck. |
| Chris 73 | Ideally: Civil language (no personal attacks), active talk page with more positive than negative comments, knowledge of the community and various policies, active in janitorial work. No overly extreme views. (Strengths in some areas may balance some weaknesses in other areas, perfect candidates are rare) |
| ~ crazytales56297 -talk- | I generally support unless there is an overwhelming negative history, like multiple 3rr blocks or incivility. I prefer 10% of edits each in User talk and Wikipedia, and generally more User talk edits than user. I' m lenient because I realise the dearth of admins and believe that any well-intentioned user with a good history would benefit the community by becoming an admin. |
| Croat Canuck | If a user always keeps a level head and not take things too seriously. Also, the user MUST not have committed multiple harmful acts to Wikipedia other than perhaps their first few edits in existence. |
| CryptoDerk | I look at adminships on a case by case basis. 1000 edits is sufficient only in cases when the user has been around for a long time (6+ months). 3 months and around 2000 edits is fine. I like to see some vandal fighting and/or involvement in community and talk pages. Most importantly, if your talk page has many comments about you doing stuff wrong, you put speedy tags on things that aren't CSDs, or you attack other users, I will oppose. The slate is wiped clean if it happened prior to a previous RFA. |
| CrazyRussian | I examine contributions for policy knowledge, BITing, civility, and thoughtfulness. I will not support a teenager unless I see specific indications of above-average maturity. I expect high edit counts in WP: and X-talk: spaces. - crz crztalk 22:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
| CycloneNimrod talk? | Generally over 1,500 edits and at least 6 months experience. Must be able to edit well (e.g. B class standard) and understand, comprehensively, the principles of WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:AfD and WP:RFPP. No blocks or serious warnings (vandalism, page blanking) within the past year and must be able to explain why they were blocked or warned and why it won't happen again. |
| Cyde↔Weys | Every candidate is a unique person, so I perform a unique analysis on each one. |
| Cynical ( talk) | I don't have any set editcount requirement, but if the user's contribution level was absurdly low (say not even high enough to be eligible to vote in Arbcom/WMF board elections, for example) then I would oppose. I have no set time requirements - a significant level of contribution to the Wikipedia community can outweigh a lack of months/weeks/days/seconds spent gnoming. I would expect decent contributions to Wikipedia_talk and Afd (since anything an admin does will probably involve either one of those) - being a good article editor does not make you a good admin, some level of understanding of how Wikipedia works is needed. Also (until recently this didn't need to be said) I expect a candidate to be human - and I mean that literally. The most important quality for an admin is judgement (indeed, the whole point of RFA is to determine whether the community trusts the candidate's judgement or not), which is something that a bot simply does not have. Bots are therefore by definition unsuitable for adminship. One final note: any contributions which show a tendency towards contempt for community consensus or Wikipedia policy will generally result in opposition. |
| User | Notes |
|---|---|
| DaGizza Chat © | If I happened to be acquainted with the user personally and know that he is trustworthy, then naturally I'll be more inclined to support and vice versa. Contributions to improving articles and managing the encyclopedia are both required because the most important thing is that this is an encyclopedia but Admins have an extra responsibilty to maintain law and order similar to
policemen. Lastly of course, he/she should be respected among the community (ie. kind, civil, calm, etc.)
In one sentence, the user must need the admin tools for his work at Wikipedia and is trustworthy enough to use them. |
| -- danntm T C | See User:Danntm/RFA for details. |
| DarthVad e r | Adminship is no big deal. If the editor shows that they understand something about the WP namespace (ie. with like 100 edits in WP:) and are mostly civil, then they should be accepted. Adminship has nothing at all to do with contributing to articles, so any criteria to do with having to have made/contributed to making a featured article or having to make heaps of "good contribution" article edits is nonsense. |
| Dbiv | Must have a user page giving some details about the candidate. Discounts on the writing requirement for those who have contributed to non-English Wikipedias. No strict requirement for edit numbers because a small number of major edits and new articles is far, far preferable to thousands of minor wikification edits, category changes and suchlike; and editors who only do the housekeeping tasks should not look to me for support. |
| D e ath phoenix | User must show some familiarity with Wikipedia processes (including activity in the Wikipedia-space) and have performed some non-admin maintenance tasks already. Answers to question 1 are often helpful in showing me how familiar the user is with Wikipedia processes. Lack of recent "negativity" is an asset, though how the user handled this is much more important. I usually only vote for users who I have personally "seen around", though I'll sometimes vote on new users who need more experience while avoiding pile-on voting. |
| Denelson83 | I will also analyse such properties as proportion of total edits summarized, general attitude of messages on the candidate's user talk page, and possibly interaction between the candidate and myself, if any. Not interacting with me, however, is not a requirement for me to support. If a potential admin has ever had a dispute with me, no matter how trivial, I will oppose that candidate on all subsequent RFAs, because I have a permanent memory of such events. |
| dlohcierekim( Talk)( Contribs) | Demonstrated ability, Barnstars, Major significant contributions weigh for support. History of vandalism, recent blocks, recent serious conflicts (Uncivility), demonstrated unreadiness weigh against. |
| Dmn | Must not have a history of vandalism or lying. Must be civil. |
| DoriSmith ( talk · contribs) | See User:DoriSmith/onRFA. |
| Doug Bell | Civility and maturity are the most important qualities—must have enough history of interactions with other users to be able to judge these. Involvement in Wikipedia policies to some extent is required, but excessive involvement in policy and talk pages to the exclusion of article contributions is a potential problem. Must demonstrate civility and maturity. Must use edit summaries—anything below 80% on major edits probably gets an oppose vote except for exceptionally strong candidates in all other areas. Over involvment in side issues such as the userbox debates, regardless of which side, is a red flag. Oh, and civility and maturity are a must.
While vandal fighting is essential, I'm not particularly swayed to grant adminship if a majority of the edits are from vandal fighting—I'd rather have admins who are engaged in creation rather than simply whacking vandals because I think that gives a better perspective for dealing with disputes. Although particularly prolific, mature and civil vandal fighters might get the nod. |
| Draicone (talk) | Case by case basis really. Can't think of an RfA I haven't supported though. |
| Drini | Must be wiling and be corageous enough to be rogue and cabalist when it's needed for the good of the wiki. And must understand debates are not votes (and thus omgadminadbuse close debates weighing arguments and not numeric count |
| ¡Dustimagic! ( T/ C) | Must have been involved in AfD discussions and other project and article name-space edits, and have done at least a minimal amount of vandal fighting. Demonstrating civility, maturity, and interaction (user talk-space edits) with others in a friendly and positive manner. |
| Durova | Play well with others. Don't run with scissors. Seriously, the question I ask is would I want you calling the shots at a dispute where I'm involved? Show me you know the site and its policies, that you would use the tools wisely and that you'd keep cool as a cucumber when a user taunts that your family tree is sixteen other species of vegetable. |